U.S. troops from Iraq to defend Kabul instead of wage Obama's al-Qaeda fight

[bigtree]

. . . he's said he'll pursue on the Pakistan border.


NEW YORK (Reuters) - Most of the additional U.S. troops heading to Afghanistan early next year will be deployed near Kabul, reflecting worries about the capital's vulnerability, The New York Times reported in Sunday editions.

Citing U.S. military commanders in Afghanistan, the Times said the plans for incoming brigades would result in fewer or no reinforcements being available, at least for the time being, for areas of Afghanistan where the insurgency is most acute.

The focus on the capital also meant most of the new troops would not be deployed with the main goal of containing the cross-border insurgent flow from their rear bases in Pakistan -- something U.S. commanders would like and Afghan President Hamid Karzai has also recommended, the Times said.

The "vast majority" would be sent to Logar and Wardak provinces, Lt. Col. Rumi Nielson-Green, a spokeswoman for U.S. units in eastern Afghanistan, told the Times. Several hundred soldiers would then move to the border region in the east, an area in which U.S. forces have engaged in fierce fighting with insurgents this year.

Karzai's spokesman told the Times there was no conflict between the January deployment and the Afghan president's statements in recent months that the fight against insurgents should not be waged in Afghanistan's villages, but rather in the eastern and southern borderlands.

read: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE4B601U20081207

[babydollhead]

1. fuck war

[stillcool]

2. I think I read recently that negotiations..

were going on with the Taliban. Since they gave up the 'carpet of gold' for the 'carpet of bombs', perhaps the Taliban would be more agreeable to pipeline politics.

[NNN0LHI]

3. One small problem with that idea. You can't buy Afghans

You can only rent them.

Don